This is a challenge, to find a flaw in the reasoning that supports
the assertion, "A quiet revolution in democracy is unfolding."
Summary of the reasoning:
A. Detailed plans exist to re-found government on the direct
authority of the public, expressing its will through social
and collaborative media.
B. Each step in implementing these plans depends on the
initiative of ordinary citizens, volunteering their time
and working together.
C. No power within a liberal democracy would oppose any step.
A. Plans

--------
The main branches of government are covered: legislative, executive
and judiciary. For the legislative, one plan is to base it on
community law-making:
1. Any citizen could draft a proposal (bill) for a new law;
or the amendment or abrogation of an existing law.
2. Other citizens (drafters) could copy the bill, modify it,
and thus create their own variants (drafts) of it.
3. Each citizen would have a single vote per bill,
which he might use to 'back' any draft of the bill.
A drafter could thus aquire a 'constituency' of backers.
... and so on
http://zelea.com/project/textbender/d/overview.xht#Law-Making
For the executive and judiciary, one plan is an electoral system based
on a delegate cascade:
1. Each citizen would carry a single vote per office, which he could
use to 'back' any other citizen as a candidate for that office.
He could also withdraw his backing at any time, or transfer it
to another candidate.
2. A candidate's own vote (as a citizen) would carry with it
the votes of all her backers.
3. At the start of the next term, the candidate with the most
backing would automatically enter office.
In this way, the public would choose its own candidates, and elect
them directly to office. A social medium such as 'Smartocracy' could
be used for this purpose.
http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/HICSS.2007.484
The delegate cascade (2) would support a 'pyramidal meritocracy'.
Most of us (to explain) are not really qualified to choose among
candidates for all the various public offices. But we probably know
somebody *more* qualified than we are, for each of them. ("I don't
know who should be Public Health Officer, but my friend is a nurse, so
I'm backing her. She can decide.") Voter competence would thus be
reached within a few degrees of separation: each higher candidate
being more fit for that office; more worthy of public trust; and also
more worthy of the added electoral weight she carries. And so this
'pyramid' would ensure that high public offices were held by the most
competent and trusted citizens.
B. Initiative
-------------
Each step in implementing these plans depends on the initiative of
ordinary citizens, volunteering their time and working together. The
underlying social and collaborative networks can be built on free and
open technology. No private interest or government program would be
needed to develop them. We could depend entirely on the public spirit
of engineers, like those volunteers who built free Unix, and much of
the Web.
Socially, too, the intiative can come from the grassroots. And it can
come quickly. Here is a scenario:
1. A simple voting system based on a delegate cascade is developed.
2. People begin to use it. They cast 'pretend' votes and elevate
their own 'pretend' candidates for the next election.
3. A newspaper runs a story: "Public Electing Its Own Candidates!"
4. The participation level rises, approaching that of an election.
5. The news media begin to interview the top candidates.
What would prevent the top candidates from running in the next
election? And who would dare to run against them?
This scenario might become the reality within a few years. The
technology for such a voting system is not terribly difficult. It
might still be imperfect in 3 years time, but it would not need to be
perfect in order to be decisive in an election. For some public
offices, perhaps some very high ones, the most recent election may be
the last in which people are told, in advance, who they can vote for.
The legislative branch is not so easy to change. It could not be done
so quickly. The technology is more difficult, and any shift of
legislative responsibility would have to be gradual and cautious, to
avoid confusion.
However, in places that did not already have a legislature, the
institution of community law-making might come more quickly. One
place that lacks a legislature (lacks accountable government, period)
is the world.
C. Opposition
-------------
No power within a liberal democracy would oppose any step in the
implementation of these plans. A liberal democracy cannot easily
resist its public. Its whole bent is to serve the public will. There
is one high institution -- supreme judiciary -- that has the power of
sustained opposition. But there is no reason to suspect, in this case,
that the justices would use that power.
Nor could any state (democratic or otherwise) do anything to prevent
the founding of an international world government. After all, the
authority of that government would not derive from any nation state;
it would not be a 'United Nations'. Its authority would come directly
from a worldwide polity -- from us. And we are, all of us, tired of
nations that do not get along with each other.
(Is there a flaw in this reasoning?)
--
Michael Allan
http://zelea.com/

Michael Allan wrote:
> This is a challenge, to find a flaw in the reasoning that supports
> the assertion, "A quiet revolution in democracy is unfolding."
>
> Summary of the reasoning:
>
> A. Detailed plans exist to re-found government on the direct
> authority of the public, expressing its will through social
> and collaborative media.
>
> B. Each step in implementing these plans depends on the
> initiative of ordinary citizens, volunteering their time
> and working together.
>
> C. No power within a liberal democracy would oppose any step.
>
<snip>
> (Is there a flaw in this reasoning?)
>
I can't figure out if you're making an assertion ("A quiet revolution in
democracy is unfolding") or proposing a course of action.
If an assertion, then there sure is a quiet revolution going on: the
current administration in Washington is subverting pretty much every
aspect of American Democracy, and so far there's not a lot of pushback.
(I'm currently reading Al Gore's "The Assault on Reason" - lots of
chilling examples, the aggregate is scary - sort of paints 1984 playing
out for real.)
If a proposed course of action, then I'd question "No power within a
liberal democracy would oppose any step." EVERY power within a liberal
democracy will oppose any encroachment on its own turf.

Alas, history supports Michael's view. Every new information technology is
advertised as the cure for democracy's ills. Power to the people was a
promised consequence of the telegraph, the telephone, radio, television, the
PC, and the Internet. Now, all we supposedly need is a wiki, Second Life,
and, I am sure, nanorobots and fiber to the home. The regrettable fact is
that the collective political life of a society is not susceptible to
engineering in the way software is. ICTs are tools, and tools cannot
determine their own use.
In the U.S., at least, conditions seem far less than ideal at the moment for
a broad-based democratic movement -- as Michael suggests, the country seems
fairly supine in the face of an evisceration of our democratic institutions.
That doesn't mean people shouldn't try, but nothing's going to happen
quickly. And, I hasten to add, I am the *optimist* in my family.
Best, Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Miles Fidelman <email obscured>]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 11:51 AM
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [EDemR] a quiet revolution in democracy
Michael Allan wrote:
> This is a challenge, to find a flaw in the reasoning that supports
> the assertion, "A quiet revolution in democracy is unfolding."
>
> Summary of the reasoning:
>
> A. Detailed plans exist to re-found government on the direct
> authority of the public, expressing its will through social
> and collaborative media.
>
> B. Each step in implementing these plans depends on the
> initiative of ordinary citizens, volunteering their time
> and working together.
>
> C. No power within a liberal democracy would oppose any step.
>
<snip>
> (Is there a flaw in this reasoning?)
>
I can't figure out if you're making an assertion ("A quiet revolution in
democracy is unfolding") or proposing a course of action.
If an assertion, then there sure is a quiet revolution going on: the
current administration in Washington is subverting pretty much every
aspect of American Democracy, and so far there's not a lot of pushback.
(I'm currently reading Al Gore's "The Assault on Reason" - lots of
chilling examples, the aggregate is scary - sort of paints 1984 playing
out for real.)
If a proposed course of action, then I'd question "No power within a
liberal democracy would oppose any step." EVERY power within a liberal
democracy will oppose any encroachment on its own turf.
Member profile for Miles Fidelman:
http://groups.dowire.org/main/contacts/mfidelman
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/main/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network
with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7DHpH9fflXLpCVrJ8zYC8i
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email <email obscured>
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by Democracies
Online - http://dowire.org.

On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 11:50:53AM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
> I can't figure out if you're making an assertion ("A quiet revolution in
> democracy is unfolding") or proposing a course of action.
I'm making an assertion about an action, that it's unfolding
in its course.
> If an assertion, then there sure is a quiet revolution going on: the
> current administration in Washington is subverting pretty much every
> aspect of American Democracy, and so far there's not a lot of pushback.
> (I'm currently reading Al Gore's "The Assault on Reason" - lots of
> chilling examples, the aggregate is scary - sort of paints 1984 playing
> out for real.)
>
> If a proposed course of action, then I'd question "No power within a
> liberal democracy would oppose any step." EVERY power within a liberal
> democracy will oppose any encroachment on its own turf.
I should have been clearer, I mean *effective* opposition. No power
within a liberal democracy (with only one exception that I know of)
can block any step. (The one exception is the courts, and they would
have no reason to be opposed.)
So, there might be opposition; but in no case could it be effective.
I can think of no scenario where turf-holders could manage more than
a grumble. The steps they would have to block, most immediately, are:
1. A simple voting system based on a delegate cascade is developed.
2. People begin to use it. They cast 'pretend' votes and elevate
their own 'pretend' candidates for the next election.
3. A newspaper runs a story: "Public Electing Its Own Candidates!"
4. The participation level rises, approaching that of an election.
5. The news media begin to interview the top candidates.
If you were a turf-holder, what could you do to stop this? Or, what
could you do to stop the top candidate from running in (and likely
winning) the real, official election?

Michael Allan wrote:
> I should have been clearer, I mean *effective* opposition. No power
> within a liberal democracy (with only one exception that I know of)
> can block any step. (The one exception is the courts, and they would
> have no reason to be opposed.)
>
Well... we now have a packed Supreme Court, and a whole slew of
appointments to the Federal bench that are going to outlast the next few
administrations.
> So, there might be opposition; but in no case could it be effective.
> I can think of no scenario where turf-holders could manage more than
> a grumble. The steps they would have to block, most immediately, are:
>
> 1. A simple voting system based on a delegate cascade is developed.
> 2. People begin to use it. They cast 'pretend' votes and elevate
> their own 'pretend' candidates for the next election.
> 3. A newspaper runs a story: "Public Electing Its Own Candidates!"
>
Stop right there. With 70% of Americans still believing that Iraq was
involved in 9/11, the media is not very effective at getting information
out. Between what doesn't get reported, and the folks who rely on Fox
for their news..... (Has anybody seen a media story on the Unity08
Campaign, for example?).
> 4. The participation level rises, approaching that of an election.
> 5. The news media begin to interview the top candidates.
>
> If you were a turf-holder, what could you do to stop this? Or, what
> could you do to stop the top candidate from running in (and likely
> winning) the real, official election?
>
Dollar driven political campaigns, using TV to reach people seem to
work. Alternative messages have a hard time getting airtime even if
they have money (MoveOn couldn't buy Superbowl ad time - they had the
money, they were refused; the White House could).
Worse, all the new Democrats in Congress - who promised to reverse
erosion of civil liberties - just rolled over and signed the new
domestic spying legislation. Because they were afraid of being called
"weak on terrorism" on TV.

Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Michael Allan wrote:
>
>> If you were a turf-holder, what could you do to stop this? Or, what
>> could you do to stop the top candidate from running in (and likely
>> winning) the real, official election?
>>
>>
> Dollar driven political campaigns, using TV to reach people seem to
> work. Alternative messages have a hard time getting airtime even if
> they have money (MoveOn couldn't buy Superbowl ad time - they had the
> money, they were refused; the White House could).
>
> Worse, all the new Democrats in Congress - who promised to reverse
> erosion of civil liberties - just rolled over and signed the new
> domestic spying legislation. Because they were afraid of being called
> "weak on terrorism" on TV.
>
I should add, that here in our local elections, an awful lot of people
don't run for office because they simply don't like getting attacked in
the local press by a lout, obnoxious, minority.

On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 10:34:24AM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Michael Allan wrote:
> > I should have been clearer, I mean *effective* opposition. No power
> > within a liberal democracy (with only one exception that I know of)
> > can block any step. (The one exception is the courts, and they would
> > have no reason to be opposed.)
> >
> Well... we now have a packed Supreme Court, and a whole slew of
> appointments to the Federal bench that are going to outlast the next few
> administrations.
But they have no reason to be opposed. I suppose it's the Supreme
Court that matters, in the end. If so, it simplifies things to focus
on them.

> > So, there might be opposition; but in no case could it be effective.
> > I can think of no scenario where turf-holders could manage more than
> > a grumble. The steps they would have to block, most immediately, are:
> >
> > 1. A simple voting system based on a delegate cascade is developed.
> > 2. People begin to use it. They cast 'pretend' votes and elevate
> > their own 'pretend' candidates for the next election.
> > 3. A newspaper runs a story: "Public Electing Its Own Candidates!"
> >
> Stop right there. With 70% of Americans still believing that Iraq was
> involved in 9/11, the media is not very effective at getting information
> out. Between what doesn't get reported, and the folks who rely on Fox
> for their news..... (Has anybody seen a media story on the Unity08
> Campaign, for example?).
Ah, but it's sensational news so it will find an outlet. There is no
block here.
> > 4. The participation level rises, approaching that of an election.
> > 5. The news media begin to interview the top candidates.
> >
> > If you were a turf-holder, what could you do to stop this? Or, what
> > could you do to stop the top candidate from running in (and likely
> > winning) the real, official election?
> >
> Dollar driven political campaigns, using TV to reach people seem to
> work. Alternative messages have a hard time getting airtime even if
> they have money (MoveOn couldn't buy Superbowl ad time - they had the
> money, they were refused; the White House could).
True, money can help a lot. But there's one thing that might even out
the fight: people are sick of being told, from on high, how to vote.
So the public might not respond as expected, when they see big money
attacking the candidate *they* nominated.
And who would the big money be backing? Would there be any other
candidates in this election, aside from the ones the public had
chosen? (Hat's off to them, because they be courageous!)
> Worse, all the new Democrats in Congress - who promised to reverse
> erosion of civil liberties - just rolled over and signed the new
> domestic spying legislation. Because they were afraid of being called
> "weak on terrorism" on TV.
Do you mean the legislature might attempt to block this? How?
--
Michael Allan
http://zelea.com/

On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 10:38:49AM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
> I should add, that here in our local elections, an awful lot of people
> don't run for office because they simply don't like getting attacked in
> the local press by a lout, obnoxious, minority.

The discussion seems to assume that this revolution has to take place in
the USA. But the opportunities may be elsewhere, perhaps in places that
are trying to find new ways of avoiding violent conflict, rather than
worshipping violence.
In answer to Steven Clift's plea to link this to research:
Michael Allan wrote:
> This is a challenge, to find a flaw in the reasoning that supports
> the assertion, "A quiet revolution in democracy is unfolding."
>
> Summary of the reasoning:
>
> A. Detailed plans exist to re-found government on the direct
> authority of the public, expressing its will through social
> and collaborative media.
A1. What are the objectives of such suggested approaches to governance?
Are they aimed at changing ongoing relationships, or improving processes
of decision-making or implementation?
A2. If there is a crisis of legitimacy in governance, from where would
actors in such a plan derive their legitimacy? (This is a sociological
question, not a legal one.)
A3. What detailed plans exist, and what would be the best plans to follow?
> B. Each step in implementing these plans depends on the
> initiative of ordinary citizens, volunteering their time
> and working together.
B1. To what extent is individual or voluntary collective initiative
enough? Or should government or legislatures take an active role in
engaging citizens between elections? (E.g. consultations run by
parliamentary committees, like http://econsultation.ie/).
B2. What would encourage or discourage people from taking the time to
engage?
B3. Can technologies or processes be designed to make it easier for
citizens to participate to the extent they wish to?
> C. No power within a liberal democracy would oppose any step.
C1. What are the interests of the different actors in governance in
societies that would call themselves liberal democracies? To what extent
are they in conflict, leading to opposition?
C2. What factors might encourage different groups to seek consensus or
form temporary alliances to support elements of such a plan?
C3. What social and technical measures might encourage consensus
formation or problem-solving approaches along such a plan, as opposed to
the current emphasis on argument (interest-based as opposed to
positional negotiation)?

One research avenue is the work done by George Monbiot in proposing a
schema for global governance based on one person one vote.
This is outlined in his book The Age of Consent.
Regards,
Dr Karin Geiselhart

In answer, first to Steven,
Another link to research might be an 'open electoral system', deployed
in the community as a research test-bed. It appears that such a
test-bed could developed with little effort, and deployed in a matter
of months. The strawman design sketch is under critical discussion
here:
http://lists.hmdc.harvard.edu/lists/apsa_itp_at_lists_hmdc_harvard_edu/2007_08/threads.html
May I post a revised sketch here, on DoWire?
(I am seeking critical comment.)
In answer to David,
Your research questions (quoted below) are directly relevant to the
design/deployment of the electoral test-bed. If we had answers to
your questions, we could deploy a better system; and, by the same
token, the deployed system would likely provide some answers.
What may be needed first, however, is a risk analysis. The test-bed
is being developed and deployed in an open fashion, and (if it works)
there will be nothing to prevent its spread from community to
community as an unofficial electoral system, alongside the old,
official one. By its very operation, I suspect that it may come to
*entrain* the official system. If so, it would add itself as a new
foundation to government, lifting most of the 'load' from the old.
David's questions seem to be an excellent basis for the risk analysis.
So, for example, if each question were answered by a ranked list of
worst-case scenarios, then we'd know better where to focus our
caution.
Michael Allan
http://zelea.com/

On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 06:01:03PM +0100, David R. Newman wrote:
> The discussion seems to assume that this revolution has to take place in
> the USA. But the opportunities may be elsewhere, perhaps in places that
> are trying to find new ways of avoiding violent conflict, rather than
> worshipping violence.
>
> In answer to Steven Clift's plea to link this to research:
>
> Michael Allan wrote:
> > This is a challenge, to find a flaw in the reasoning that supports
> > the assertion, "A quiet revolution in democracy is unfolding."
> >
> > Summary of the reasoning:
> >
> > A. Detailed plans exist to re-found government on the direct
> > authority of the public, expressing its will through social
> > and collaborative media.
>
> A1. What are the objectives of such suggested approaches to governance?
> Are they aimed at changing ongoing relationships, or improving processes
> of decision-making or implementation?
>
> A2. If there is a crisis of legitimacy in governance, from where would
> actors in such a plan derive their legitimacy? (This is a sociological
> question, not a legal one.)
>
> A3. What detailed plans exist, and what would be the best plans to follow?
>
> > B. Each step in implementing these plans depends on the
> > initiative of ordinary citizens, volunteering their time
> > and working together.
>
> B1. To what extent is individual or voluntary collective initiative
> enough? Or should government or legislatures take an active role in
> engaging citizens between elections? (E.g. consultations run by
> parliamentary committees, like http://econsultation.ie/).
>
> B2. What would encourage or discourage people from taking the time to
> engage?
>
> B3. Can technologies or processes be designed to make it easier for
> citizens to participate to the extent they wish to?
>
> > C. No power within a liberal democracy would oppose any step.
>
> C1. What are the interests of the different actors in governance in
> societies that would call themselves liberal democracies? To what extent
> are they in conflict, leading to opposition?
>
> C2. What factors might encourage different groups to seek consensus or
> form temporary alliances to support elements of such a plan?
>
> C3. What social and technical measures might encourage consensus
> formation or problem-solving approaches along such a plan, as opposed to
> the current emphasis on argument (interest-based as opposed to
> positional negotiation)?

Age of Consent looks interesting (thanks Karin). I found 2 others on
the shelf nearby, but haven't looked into them yet:
* Ross Smyth, One World or None
* Jens Steffek, Embedded Liberalism and its Critics

On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 06:40:04PM -0400, <email obscured> wrote:
> One research avenue is the work done by George Monbiot in proposing a
> schema for global governance based on one person one vote.
>
> This is outlined in his book The Age of Consent.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dr Karin Geiselhart

one of the starting points for global governance is that we are all
influenced by activities and events that we have no influence on, a 21
century version of taxation without representation.
Another is that an underlying principle of democracy implies a
'contraction and convergence' as Monbiot advocates for carbon emissions.
In other words, global e-dem has to be informed by principles of equity.
Dr Karin Geiselhart

"There will be nothing to prevent its spread from community to
community as an unofficial electoral system . . ."
Except, that is, widespread indifference, the digital divide, popular
distrust of electronic voting processes, state constitutions and state and
local laws, the fact that official processes actually choose public
officials with command over both policy and tangible resources that people
do care about ...

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Allan <email obscured>]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 7:58 AM
To: <email obscured>
Subject: Re: [EDemR] a quiet revolution in democracy
In answer, first to Steven,
Another link to research might be an 'open electoral system', deployed
in the community as a research test-bed. It appears that such a
test-bed could developed with little effort, and deployed in a matter
of months. The strawman design sketch is under critical discussion
here:
http://lists.hmdc.harvard.edu/lists/apsa_itp_at_lists_hmdc_harvard_edu/2007_
08/threads.html
May I post a revised sketch here, on DoWire?
(I am seeking critical comment.)
In answer to David,
Your research questions (quoted below) are directly relevant to the
design/deployment of the electoral test-bed. If we had answers to
your questions, we could deploy a better system; and, by the same
token, the deployed system would likely provide some answers.
What may be needed first, however, is a risk analysis. The test-bed
is being developed and deployed in an open fashion, and (if it works)
there will be nothing to prevent its spread from community to
community as an unofficial electoral system, alongside the old,
official one. By its very operation, I suspect that it may come to
*entrain* the official system. If so, it would add itself as a new
foundation to government, lifting most of the 'load' from the old.
David's questions seem to be an excellent basis for the risk analysis.
So, for example, if each question were answered by a ranked list of
worst-case scenarios, then we'd know better where to focus our
caution.
Michael Allan
http://zelea.com/
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 06:01:03PM +0100, David R. Newman wrote:
> The discussion seems to assume that this revolution has to take place in
> the USA. But the opportunities may be elsewhere, perhaps in places that
> are trying to find new ways of avoiding violent conflict, rather than
> worshipping violence.
>
> In answer to Steven Clift's plea to link this to research:
>
> Michael Allan wrote:
> > This is a challenge, to find a flaw in the reasoning that supports
> > the assertion, "A quiet revolution in democracy is unfolding."
> >
> > Summary of the reasoning:
> >
> > A. Detailed plans exist to re-found government on the direct
> > authority of the public, expressing its will through social
> > and collaborative media.
>
> A1. What are the objectives of such suggested approaches to governance?
> Are they aimed at changing ongoing relationships, or improving processes
> of decision-making or implementation?
>
> A2. If there is a crisis of legitimacy in governance, from where would
> actors in such a plan derive their legitimacy? (This is a sociological
> question, not a legal one.)
>
> A3. What detailed plans exist, and what would be the best plans to follow?
>
> > B. Each step in implementing these plans depends on the
> > initiative of ordinary citizens, volunteering their time
> > and working together.
>
> B1. To what extent is individual or voluntary collective initiative
> enough? Or should government or legislatures take an active role in
> engaging citizens between elections? (E.g. consultations run by
> parliamentary committees, like http://econsultation.ie/).
>
> B2. What would encourage or discourage people from taking the time to
> engage?
>
> B3. Can technologies or processes be designed to make it easier for
> citizens to participate to the extent they wish to?
>
> > C. No power within a liberal democracy would oppose any step.
>
> C1. What are the interests of the different actors in governance in
> societies that would call themselves liberal democracies? To what extent
> are they in conflict, leading to opposition?
>
> C2. What factors might encourage different groups to seek consensus or
> form temporary alliances to support elements of such a plan?
>
> C3. What social and technical measures might encourage consensus
> formation or problem-solving approaches along such a plan, as opposed to
> the current emphasis on argument (interest-based as opposed to
> positional negotiation)?
Member profile for Michael Allan:
http://groups.dowire.org/contacts/michaelallan
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network
with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/2bHepD5bU6gkZGRbQTYBqY
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email <email obscured>
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by Democracies
Online - http://dowire.org.

More fundamentally, what evidence is there that the available electoral systems
(i.e. the combination of 'method of
voting' and the 'voting system') are significant stumbling blocks to democratic
participation? We have well-tried and
secure methods of voting and we have voting systems that can ensure fair
representation of those who vote (though they
are not much used in the USA!), and there is good evidence that electors will
use them when they want to.
There are real problems of elector disengagement and disaffection, but I doubt
whether changing the electoral system to
anything like the 'open' version suggested will contribute much to the
encouragement of participation and the
development of real democracy. If you want to build (or rebuild) competence
and political competence within local
communities, I don't think building a competing, unofficial electoral system is
the priority.

James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter M. Shane <email obscured>]
> Sent: 23 August 2007 14:12
> To: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [EDemR] a quiet revolution in democracy
>
> "There will be nothing to prevent its spread from community
> to community as an unofficial electoral system . . ."
>
> Except, that is, widespread indifference, the digital divide,
> popular distrust of electronic voting processes, state
> constitutions and state and local laws, the fact that
> official processes actually choose public officials with
> command over both policy and tangible resources that people
> do care about ...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Allan <email obscured>]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 7:58 AM
> To: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [EDemR] a quiet revolution in democracy
>
> In answer, first to Steven,
>
> Another link to research might be an 'open electoral system',
> deployed in the community as a research test-bed. It appears
> that such a test-bed could developed with little effort, and
> deployed in a matter of months. The strawman design sketch is
> under critical discussion
> here:
>
http://lists.hmdc.harvard.edu/lists/apsa_itp_at_lists_hmdc_harvard_edu/2007_08/threads.html

James Gilmour wrote:
> More fundamentally, what evidence is there that the available electoral
systems (i.e. the combination of 'method of
> voting' and the 'voting system') are significant stumbling blocks to
democratic participation?
Well, the original suggestion (but not the Michael Allen's description
of an open electoral system) was as much about public design of the
questions and choices, as it was on voting between choices.
This is something people often miss when reading about systems like
Peter Emerson's de Borda preferendum, but haven't been to an event. A
lot of the work goes into making sure the issues and options are those
of interest to (groups of) citizens, rather than being set by
politicians, civil servants or newspaper editors.
How do we make sure that people aren't just limited to answering
questions crafted in a way to produce a particular answer?

David R. Newman asked:
> How do we make sure that people aren't just limited to
> answering questions crafted in a way to produce a particular answer?
You build from the bottom up. Ideally, you have subsidiarity rather than
devolution. ("Power devolved is power
retained".)
I have no direct experience of them, but I could foresee e-systems like
www.oncom.org.uk making a useful contribution to
that, though e-systems alone are not enough because they create their own
exclusions.

On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:12:01AM -0400, Peter M. Shane wrote:
>
> > "There will be nothing to prevent its spread from community to
> > community as an unofficial electoral system . . ."
>
> Except, that is, widespread indifference, the digital divide, popular
> distrust of electronic voting processes, state constitutions and state and
> local laws, the fact that official processes actually choose public
> officials with command over both policy and tangible resources that people
> do care about ...
In the context, though, I suggest that the possible spread of the
system is a potential *problem*. We should not count on indifference
etc., as a safeguard:
> > What may be needed first, however, is a risk analysis. The test-bed
> > is being developed and deployed in an open fashion, and (if it works)
> > there will be nothing to prevent its spread from community to
> > community as an unofficial electoral system, alongside the old,
It might be better if the electoral system did not spread
immediately. We'd have more time to study it, and improve its design.
However, open systems cannot easily be contained, and communities tend
to copy other communities. If it works at all, I fear it will spread
quickly. I have an idea on how to lower the risk in this, and will
post in a separate thread soon.
As to participation levels, it should not take too long to find out. A
system could be deployed in a matter of months. It would be fairly
easy to develop and deploy. It should yield good data.
In response to David Newman, I read your page on preferenda:
http://www.qub.ac.uk/users/drn/prefer/preferen.html
I see a similarity to preferanda in both proposed systems (open
electoral, and open legislative). Both allow "public design of the
questions and choices" (and not only "voting between choices"). In
the open electoral system, one may vote for anybody at all. So the
public effectively chooses it's own candidates. Consensus is achieved
automatically through a delegate cascade of the votes. Those higher in
the cascade (and thus most competent and trusted, according to public)
automatically assume a similar role to 'consensors'.
In the open legislative system (original topic of this thread) the
public has two inputs: 1) propose its own bills and variant drafts;
and 2) vote on them. Not many can easily do (1), but many can do (2),
especially because I recently improved the design. People can now
(just as in the electoral system) vote for anybody they want. For
example, if I figure that my next-door neighbour knows alot more about
the proposed bill, and I trust him to represent me, then I may vote
for him as my legislator (for this particular bill). Exactly the same
voting system is used for this purpose, and the delegate cascade helps
to produce a consensus on a single legislator (thus a single draft of
the bill) at the top of the cascade.

On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 09:40:58PM -0400, <email obscured> wrote:
> one of the starting points for global governance is that we are all
> influenced by activities and events that we have no influence on, a 21
> century version of taxation without representation.
>
> Another is that an underlying principle of democracy implies a
> 'contraction and convergence' as Monbiot advocates for carbon emissions.
> In other words, global e-dem has to be informed by principles of equity.
In a broader historical context, Steffek analyzes the opposing
international policies of 'embedded liberalism' and 'redistributive
multilateralism'. (Embedded Liberalism and its Critics: Justifying
Global Governance in the American Century.)
I only read the intro, but it supports Monbiot's claim (and your
suggestion) that existing international institutions (embedded
liberalism) are broken.
I hope to read further. I am especially interested in any studies of a
possible third alternative, which might be called 'migratory
liberalism' or 'redistributive peoples' (?), where the policy would be
the free movement of people. Individuals would make their own
decisions, and "vote with their feet". I read a brief mention of this
idea in the Economist (years ago), but nothing since. (Would Steffek
agree with me, that American culture would not likely be opposed to
the free movement of people, as it is opposed to the forced
redistribution of wealth?)
But I finished reading Monbiot's 'Age of Consent' (redistributive
multilateralism). Assuming the assertion of this thread is true, the
following variables in his analysis would be changed:
1. Power structure and dynamics within liberal democracies
would be altered by the open electoral system.
This alteration would precede a global election.
Social/cultural transformations, too, would likely be occuring.
2. The financial cost of a global election would be much reduced
from his estimate of 5 billion dollars (p 90). Election costs
would be negligible. A cost of zero could reasonably be argued.
3. There might be no need of an elected assembly,
because an open legislature based on community law-making
would be feasible in roughly 6 years (or perhaps half
or double that).
(The following points apply only if, nevertheless,
there would be an interim assembly; perhaps as a stop gap.)
4. The danger of an assembly usurping power, and legally dismantling
democracy (p 118), could be eliminated by a constitutional
safeguard involving the open electoral system. For examples:
a) disqualify representatives from voting,
unless they have current public backing; or
b) constitutional changes ratified by public referendum.
5. The power of political donations and lobbies to corrupt
an assembly, which Monbiot fears, would likely be altered
by the open electoral system. Its open candidacy
and continuous elections would transfer power from donors
and lobbyists, to the constituency. (However, donors and lobbyists
might find ways to get some of it back.) For a recent discussion
of this, see:
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=006756
6. Similarly, party discipline (the 'whipping system') is not likely
to survive under an open electoral system. In a continuous
election, representatives would be inclined to serve their
constituents first. For one reason, they would otherwise risk
immediate decline in the re-election 'poll', and embarrassing
questions from other, leading candidates. Again, see:
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=006756